A profession of faith from a Salvadoran base community
Beginning in 1969, the movement of Christian base communities took root in the poor communities of El Salvador. Small groups gather, often in their homes, to study the Bible and celebrate the sacraments as communities of faith. Their discussions lead to new interpretations of the Gospel based on their daily experiences, and to new understandings of their situation, illuminated by scripture reflection.
The Christian base communities have been attacked for their devotion to the Gospel. Christ the Savior church in the Zacamil district of San Salvador was bombed in 1980 and remained closed for four years. In November 1989 the church was desecrated again by Army troops who violated the tabernacle and scattered the Blessed Sacrament on the floor. The following prayer was offered by the people of the parish to commemorate the fifteenth anniversary of the Christian base communities in Zacamil on February 12, 1984. The church was decorated with red flowers in memory of the 623 martyrs from this parish. The Eucharist was celebrated by a thousand people, among them twelve priests and the Archbishop.
WE BELIEVE in God,
who created us free and walks with us in the struggle for liberation.WE BELIEVE in Christ,
crucified again in the suffering of the poor, a suffering which calls out to the conscience of people and nations, a suffering which ends in resurrection.WE BELIEVE in the power of the Spirit,
capable of inspiring the same compassion which has led our best brothers and sisters to martyrdom.WE BELIEVE in the Church,
called forth by Jesus and by the Holy Spirit.WE BELIEVE that when we gather,
Jesus is with us, Mary, our Mother, is at our side, a sign of faithfulness to the Lord.WE BELIEVE in the Christian community
where we proclaim our ideals, through which we practice our Christian faith.WE BELIEVE in building a Church
where we pray and reflect on our reality, and share in the prophetic, priestly and pastoral mission of Jesus. In this way, we make the Kingdom of God present on earth.WE BELIEVE in unity in the midst of differences.
WE BELIEVE that Christ calls us
to communion and to live as sisters and brothers.WE BELIEVE that we need
to love one another, to correct one another compassionately, to forgive each other’s errors and weaknesses.WE BELIEVE that we need
to help one another recognize our limitations, to support each other in faith.WE BELIEVE that the poor,
the illiterate and the sick, the persecuted and tortured, are closest to the Gospel of Jesus. Through them, Christ challenges us to work for justice and peace. Their cause is our cause.WE BELIEVE that Christ is also present
in those who are slaves to their passions, their vices, lies and injustice, to power and money.WE COMMIT ourselves
to never give up hope in the possibility of their conversion; to love them even though they slander, persecute and kill us; to pray for them and to help them so that one day they may live simply and humbly in the way that the Gospel calls us to live. Amen.
From El Salvador: A Spring Whose Waters Never Run Dry, edited by Jon Sobrino (Ecumenical Program on Central America and the Caribbean, 1990), pp. 48-9.
Comments are closed.
Beautiful prayer .. or I guess it isn’t a prayer. Credo?
I am wondering about these “new interpretations of the Gospel” these communities have produced. What are they exactly?
Are these communities part of a broader attempt to immanentize the eschaton?
Does God liberate us from material want?
But please don’t mistake me, this is a beautiful prayer
I am wondering about these “new interpretations of the Gospel” these communities have produced. What are they exactly?
They are numerous.
Are these communities part of a broader attempt to immanentize the eschaton?
Nope.
Does God liberate us from material want?
Who else would? The state? The market? Technology?
Can you elaborate on these numerous new interpretations? Maybe on one or two of the more significant ones …
I have not heard before that God liberates us from material want. Jesus did not die to end suffering but to redeem it, to give it meaning.
Can you elaborate on these numerous new interpretations? Maybe on one or two of the more significant ones …
Sure. One significant development is a deeper, more nuanced understanding of suffering, such that comments like “Jesus did not die to end suffering but to redeem it, to give it meaning” are exposed for the ways in which they are ideologically useful for the powerful. God does not want to “give meaning” to all types of suffering. God wants some kinds of suffering, such as the victimization of human beings by other human beings, to end.
And by destroying the traditional Catholic approach to suffering, you take away the worth of living with a disability.
“God wants some kinds of suffering, such as the victimization of human beings by other human beings, to end.”
This is very interesting to me (given my fascination with the theme of suffering and its socio-political effects). I think it seems like God would desire an end to suffering except that, in order for us to be in God’s image, it (suffering) always remains a possibility and a mystery of God’s love.
The idea that the objectification of human persons is something that we should desire to end is one thing, however, there is a sense in which we can desire that end, but know that, as Creation, such an end would require an act of solidarity the likes the world has never seen—is there a reason for the sheer, finite impossibility of such a world?
Where I am going with this is to ask you to elaborate (perhaps in a separate post) on how one can amend the desires of God and the desires of man in such a way that create a category of suffering that deserves to be extinct in a way that other forms do not, on this earth.
In the end, this become a question of the nature of evil, I think.
How do we love another, without that love leading us into self-giving for others’ sake, be they children, spouses, friends, or compatriots? How can there be that self-giving without some element of suffering? This, I propose, can be graced suffering.
Suffering arbitrarily due to malicious evil, abuse of power, human indifference to poverty, sickness or ignorance, however, is contrary to the values of the Reign of God. Liberating people from these is essential to the mission of Jesus Christ (Luke 4:18-19), and thus the Church, as well.
And by destroying the traditional Catholic approach to suffering, you take away the worth of living with a disability.
Please read what I actually wrote.
Sam – Yes, I agree that suffering “always remains a possibility and a mystery of God’s love” and that we are not able to simply get rid of it. For me, though, it’s a question of whether we (and the Church) are opting to join in the liberating mission of Jesus or whether we are in fact justifying and/or encouraging victimization through our theology of suffering that seeks to give all suffering “meaning.”
Michael, this is serious task indeed and the line that it toes can seem to be a chasm at times and hair at others. I would be very interested in exploring this question at more length with you sometime.
I am so sick of “Please read what I actually wrote.” I did. You said that the traditional Catholic teaching, which is that we should embrace our sufferings, serves the purposes of those in power.
You wrote that in this “credimus” (as opposed to “credo”), these people say that Jesus is crucified again in the suffering of the poor.
I believe, as a Catholic, that we take away from Jesus’ sufferings on the Cross when we embrace our worldly sufferings.
I believe that God *wants* us to suffer so we need him.
I believe that the Catholic solution to the world’s problems is not to redistribute wealth but to eliminate it.
Jesus says we’re called to be poor.
He praises the woman who gives away her last penny.
The main reason I’m Catholic is that I know there is no worldly end to suffering: the Church teaches in Catechism 676 that we are to reject any such notions.
The main reason I’m Catholic is that the Church teaches me my suffering has meaning in the Cross, that the way of God is the way of suffering.
GG
Yes, you are sick of having to actually relate to what people say and believe, instead of being allowed to mouth off at what they don’t believe.
Sam – Gutierrez and Sobrino are good on this topic.
GodsGadfly – Sounds to me like you are into therapeutic Catholicism.
I believe, as a Catholic, that we take away from Jesus’ sufferings on the Cross when we embrace our worldly sufferings.
This is a weird idea.
I believe that God *wants* us to suffer so we need him.
So is this.
I believe that the Catholic solution to the world’s problems is not to redistribute wealth but to eliminate it.
Eliminate wealth? Seriously? The Catholic tradition holds redistribution of wealth in extremely high regard.
It’s a weird idea? It’s what you see in the teachings of the mystics and in the Marian apparitions. Try reading a Stations of the Cross that was written before 1970.
Have you ever read the Bible? Tower of Babel? God says that if people get too powerful, they won’t need Him.
Jesus teaches that we are to embrace poverty. It’s called an evangelical counsel.
Henry, I am sick of knowing exactly what is said and being told I didn’t.
It’s a weird idea? It’s what you see in the teachings of the mystics and in the Marian apparitions. Try reading a Stations of the Cross that was written before 1970.
Let me be clear. I’m sure you can find evidence in the tradition for such beliefs but this does not mean they can/should not be critiqued. The idea that our sufferings take away from the suffering Jesus experienced on the cross has no basis in Catholic teaching. Even the Resurrection did not “take away” from Jesus’ suffering on the cross.
Jesus teaches that we are to embrace poverty. It’s called an evangelical counsel.
Jesus also condemned the rich’s exploitation of the poor. You’ll need to do better than this if you are going to be faithful to what the Gospels actually say.
Michael I.
I would also say the problem is when people take legitimate aspects of the Church’s ways of teaching us how to transform suffering as a work for God into something which is the only way suffering can be and should be dealt with; it is taking a truth and extracting it from the greater context of God’s love for the world. God came to heal the world, and that, of course, includes the ending of mindless, needless suffering — after all, Jesus didn’t go around maiming people for the kingdom of God, but healing them for the sake of God’s glory. But it is true, and I know you would accept it, the experiences of suffering, while the suffering shows the effect of evil in the world, can be transformed into a work of glory for God, not because the suffering is accepted, but because it is used to overcome suffering, just as death overcomes death in Jesus.
Michael,
Notice, I said “eliminate” wealth.
To criticize the rich for having wealth is not necessarily the same thing as to insist that property be lavished on the poor.
Henry,
Jesus came to accept the suffering of the Cross. When we accept our sufferings, we join with Christ.
There is no end to suffering in this life–the poor will always be with you–and when we are *not* suffering, we forget about God.
This life is not an end in itself, and the things of this world are passing away.
There is no such thing as senseless suffering. There *is* such a thing as senseless violence, and that is, again, another matter.
It is also quite another matter to attempt to relieve the suffering of others.
What I object to is the claim to try and escape it for oneself. He who seeks his life will lose it; he who loses his life will find it. Consider the lilies of the field.
It’s about detachment from the world.
Have you read _The Way of Perfection_? In her reflection on the PaterNoster, St. Teresa says that, when we pray, “Thy will be done,” we pray to suffer, because God’s will is *always* that we suffer.
But it is true, and I know you would accept it, the experiences of suffering, while the suffering shows the effect of evil in the world, can be transformed into a work of glory for God, not because the suffering is accepted, but because it is used to overcome suffering, just as death overcomes death in Jesus.
Yes I agree with this.
In her reflection on the PaterNoster, St. Teresa says that, when we pray, “Thy will be done,” we pray to suffer, because God’s will is *always* that we suffer.
She was wrong.
Human suffering can never be eliminated and some very holy people have even speculated that there may be limited suffering in Heaven.
I wouldn’t so quickly discount their opinions.
Human suffering can never be eliminated
Suffering can never be completely eliminated, no. But it can be eliminated in relative ways. We human beings do have choices about what kind of suffering we impose upon others.
…and some very holy people have even speculated that there may be limited suffering in Heaven.
Interesting idea. Which holy people have suggested this? (Bear in mind that holy people do have the ability to suggest some pretty silly things…)
This is very interesting. I second the request for a separate post delving into the suffering thing more.
I’m also thinking about how liberation theology fits in with another issue ..Jesus announces that He, Himself is the Law, which means that people could follow Him without being a part of the Jewish political system. That’s a fairly dramatic departure from conventional wisdom; before that religion was pretty well tethered to “the nation” and politics.
I cannot think of any part of the Gospel in which Jesus offers criticism of Israel’s political oppressors. He had zealots in His company but He did not join that movement.
Given this behavior, it does not seem very likely to me that Jesus would make political liberation an important part of His mission.
Lizzy – I’ll try to do something on the question of suffering.
As for Jesus and “political liberation,” it all hinges on how one defines “political” and “liberation.”
It’s clear Jesus did not favor the approach of the zealots. But the fact that there were zealots who were attracted to his movement says something. The fact that he was executed as a political criminal is also significant. Whether or not the authorities were right in their judgment is not particularly relevant… there must have been something political about Jesus’ ministry/movement.
My view is that Jesus was in favor of political liberation but in a way entirely different from the zealots. This is the view of most liberation theologians, in fact. It’s also the view of theologians like John Howard Yoder, author of The Politics of Jesus, though he is quite different from the liberationists in a lot of ways.
Teaching St Luke’s Gospel this semester I noticed that Jesus teaches only one kind of prayer — petition — including petition to be healed of illness and to have material wants met. On wealth there are many parables and stories (Zacchaeus for example) and it is the chief moral concern of the author (nothing about sex!); share your wealth with the poor is the basic teaching.
Meanwhile how does the church of John Paul II and Benedict XVI treat the poor? Like this:
http://clericalwhispers.blogspot.com/2009/07/catholic-church-vs-women-of-brazil.html
Jesus does not say he is the Law but that he comes to fulfill the Law. He identifies “justice, mercy and faith” (Mt 23.23) as the principal values of the Law, and he shares with a scribe the insight that the Double Commandment of love is the essence of the Law and the Prophets. Liberation theologians have made an excellent effort to clarify the ethics of Jesus and of the Kingdom of God that he preached. The new social encyclical is pallid and abstract and unconvincing in comparison.